Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein

[tabitha2]

Elizabeth will protect him, refuse to believe the allegations and comfort him because she is his mother and he is her favorite child and she hates confrontation. Phillip has probably taken the paint of the walls swearing at/about his kid.  I bet the rest of his family is more or less quietly disgusted by Andrew potentially bringing such ugly scandal back to the family after years of image rebuilding and of course as horrified as anyone else at Epstein’s actions. Charles won’t want him associated with new image he likely plans for the Monarchy either so  Best retire and live in luxury and obscurity on some island Andy. 

[bird]

I moved to England in 2000 and as far back as I can remember there have been people discussing the royal family's connection to a top secret paedophile ring. It is really common to hear it brought up. In the beginning I just assumed they were outrageous conspiracy theories but as always there's no smoke without a fire. 

[VelociRapture]

New video courtesy of The Daily Fail:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7367511/Prince-Andrew-pictured-inside-paedophile-Jeffrey-Epsteins-63million-mansion-depravity.html

Apparently it shows Andrew standing inside the doorway of Epstein’s New York home back in 2010 - two years after Epstein was convicted for “sex with a child” (aka, rape of a child since sex implies, to me, that it was consensual and a child can’t consent.)

[viii]

Disgusting. 

I am so disappointed with Elizabeth, and I have always admired her. Ugh. Cancelled. 

[tabitha2]

FYI Scotland Yard has no investigation going on because no complaint has been made to them. I really don’t see how Andrew can be held accountable by law of anything at this point at least. 

[AmazonGrace]

On 8/14/2019 at 1:58 AM, WiseGirl said:

  Andrew even cut his vacation short this year.

 

how can anyone tell the difference? he seems pretty useless either way

[FluffySnowball]

2 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

FYI Scotland Yard has no investigation going on because no complaint has been made to them. I really don’t see how Andrew can be held accountable by law of anything at this point at least. 

He deserves to be investigated. So far at least, his wealth, connections and royal title seem to protect him. 

I could imagine that Charles and/or William and Catherine pull a King Filipe of Spain once they ascend to the throne. The current Spanish king cast aside one of his sisters and her husband after they were in legal trouble due to - corruption? Following suit might be a good move. 

Edited August 18, 2019 by FluffySnowball

[tabitha2]

You can’t really compare the two monarchies.The Windsor’s are infinitely far more tradition bound and family presenting a solid front before the public than the shaky tottery not all that popular relatively new Spanish Royal House. Charles will limit his brother’s participation in Royal activities/duties I believe but won’t do anything more to Shit on the carpet publically and in press. They will play dirty in private .

[VelociRapture]

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/19/752285665/amid-a-brewing-royal-scandal-prince-andrew-distances-himself-from-epstein

Yes, because continuing the friendship AFTER Epstein was convicted the first time and not speaking out about Epstein’s crimes until now clearly indicates the fact that he was “appalled” by it all. 

The article also erroneously states Andrew is fourth in line to the throne. Thankfully, he’s fallen all the way down to eighth.

[nokidsmom]

1 hour ago, VelociRapture said:

Yes, because continuing the friendship AFTER Epstein was convicted the first time and not speaking out about Epstein’s crimes until now clearly indicates the fact that he was “appalled” by it all

Even if Randy Andy did not know about his friend's, um, activities until the 2008 conviction, waiting until 2019 to say he was "appalled" is not very convincing.   And the fact that Andy's "ex but not quite an ex" took money to pay off debts (though the article doesn't say when that happened) just makes it look like not just Andrew but his own ex-wife was willing to look the other way.  They are both painted with the same slimy brush.  But then again Andrew has been given a lot of slack over his behavior over the years.  Maybe those times are over.

Agree that Charles and / or William will likely limit his participation in the future.  Charles with his vision of the monarchy and William, who follow in those footsteps.  William, in particular, has talked about the responsibilities of the monarchy, namely in supporting charities and making the world a better place.   Dear old uncle doesn't seem to quite fit in with that. 

Edited August 19, 2019 by nokidsmom
Riffle

[laPapessaGiovanna]

18 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

You can’t really compare the two monarchies.The Windsor’s are infinitely far more tradition bound and family presenting a solid front before the public than the shaky tottery not all that popular relatively new Spanish Royal House. Charles will limit his brother’s participation in Royal activities/duties I believe but won’t do anything more to Shit on the carpet publically and in press. They will play dirty in private .

When I read your posts in this forum it always takes me half an hour to unstick my eyes from the back of their sockets.

As I may have said somewhere, I am no royalist and definitely a staunch republican, but when I hear people spout historically inaccurate shit I have to say something. The House of Windsors was born yesterday compared to the House of Bourbon. And apparently Juan Carlos commanded enough popularity and respect to be accepted as king in 1975 after 44 years of hiatus following the civil war and the dictatorship. But Spaniards, for cultural, economical and historical reasons, seem to be more disenchanted with monarchy than Britons and keep a tighter leash on the whole bunch, that's why Juan Carlos thought it was better to abdicate after the scandals involving himself and his daughter, to offer the monarchy a fresh start with younger and more popular Felipe. Should Felipe ever be caught excusing away pedophilic behaviour from a relative I think that Spaniards may seriously think about putting an end to the whole monarchy thing. But it wouldn't be because of the differences between the House of Windsor and the House of Bourbon but because of the differences between Spain and the United Kingdom and the different expectations the two countries place on their royals.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

Prince Andrew was seen getting foot massage from young woman at Epstein's apartment

Gag. The whole article is worth a reading, but this part left me speechless.

Spoiler

He writes: “Last time I visited his house (the largest private residence in NYC), I walked in to find him in a sweatsuit and a British guy in a suit with suspenders [braces], getting foot massages from two young well-dressed Russian women.”

“After grilling me for a while about cyber-security, the Brit, named Andy, was commenting on the Swedish authorities and the charges against Julian Assange. We think they’re liberal in Sweden, but its more like Northern England as opposed to Southern Europe,” Brockman reports “Andy” as saying.

Brockman writes that Andrew then complained about his public profile. “In Monaco, Albert works 12 hours a day but at 9pm, when he goes out, he does whatever he wants, and nobody cares. But, if I do it, I’m in big trouble,” the emails describe him saying.

 

[VelociRapture]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/prince-andrew-says-mistake-error-131800640.html

Well no shit Sherlock. 

[VelociRapture]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/28/world/europe/prince-andrew-epstein-accuser.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Virginia Roberts Giuffre issued a direct appeal to Prince Andrew to come clean about what he knew and what he had done, after a hearing in New York where many of Epstein’s accusers spoke out. I have a feeling this is not going to go away quietly and is going to prove to be a well deserved headache, at the least, for the Royals for a while. 

[nokidsmom]

2 hours ago, VelociRapture said:

I have a feeling this is not going to go away quietly and is going to prove to be a well deserved headache, at the least, for the Royals for a while. 

Mr. No mentioned this to me this AM and I was thinking that Randy Andy might finally see himself in some serious shit.  Saying you are "appalled" 11 years after your buddy was convicted just does not ring true.  

[hoipolloi]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/28/world/europe/prince-andrew-epstein-accuser.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
I have a feeling this is not going to go away quietly and is going to prove to be a well deserved headache, at the least, for the Royals for a while. 

Maybe this is why the Queen agreed to BoJo’s suspension of Parliament — takes attention & heat off Andrew.

[VelociRapture]

15 minutes ago, hoipolloi said:

Maybe this is why the Queen agreed to BoJo’s suspension of Parliament — takes attention & heat off Andrew.

Does the Queen really have the power to say no to a request like that? I was under the impression most of her “power” was purely ceremonial, but I’m definitely not an expert. 

[hoipolloi]

Does the Queen really have the power to say no to a request like that? I was under the impression most of her “power” was purely ceremonial, but I’m definitely not an expert. 

Doubt she can say no - it is a legal request even if it stinks to high heaven.

[Palimpsest]

37 minutes ago, hoipolloi said:

Maybe this is why the Queen agreed to BoJo’s suspension of Parliament — takes attention & heat off Andrew.

Very unlikely. 

21 minutes ago, VelociRapture said:

Does the Queen really have the power to say no to a request like that? I was under the impression most of her “power” was purely ceremonial, but I’m definitely not an expert. 

She has very limited powers.  She *technically* could exercise royal prerogative and refuse BoJo's request.  However, in 60+ years I think she's only used it 3 times.  In 1963 she broke a deadlock and ordered Sir Alec Douglas-Home to form a coalition government appointing him PM.  Also I think she (or her envoy) dismissed an Australian PM and did something in Canada.  I'd have to look it up.

This explains what is happening.  It is quite common, but has unusual facets this time.  It goes way beyond Andrew's sins and crimes.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/28/what-is-prorogation-prorogue-parliament-boris-johnson-brexit

Edited August 28, 2019 by Palimpsest

[VelociRapture]

26 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

Very unlikely. 

She has very limited powers.  She *technically* could exercise royal prerogative and refuse BoJo's request.  However, in 60+ years I think she's only used it 3 times.  In 1963 she broke a deadlock and ordered Sir Alec Douglas-Home to form a coalition government appointing him PM.  Also I think she (or her envoy) dismissed an Australian PM and did something in Canada.  I'd have to look it up.

This explains what is happening.  It is quite common, but has unusual facets this time.  It goes way beyond Andrew's sins and crimes.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/28/what-is-prorogation-prorogue-parliament-boris-johnson-brexit

Thank you! I’ll look through it when my in-laws leave later tonight. I thought her powers were pretty limited, but reading here has really driven home the fact that I'm a real novice on this topic. ?

 

[hoipolloi]

52 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

1 hour ago, hoipolloi said:

Maybe this is why the Queen agreed to BoJo’s suspension of Parliament — takes attention & heat off Andrew.

Very unlikely. 

You are correct. I should have phrased it better -- perhaps something along the lines of HM & the BRF must be  goddamned thankful that BoJo dropped this bomb on the British public right now.

I also doubt that the Epstein matter is going away any time soon or that Andrew will be allowed to evade further scrutiny or criticism.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

8 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

She has very limited powers.  She *technically* could exercise royal prerogative and refuse BoJo's request.  However, in 60+ years I think she's only used it 3 times.  In 1963 she broke a deadlock and ordered Sir Alec Douglas-Home to form a coalition government appointing him PM.  Also I think she (or her envoy) dismissed an Australian PM and did something in Canada.  I'd have to look it up.

This explains what is happening.  It is quite common, but has unusual facets this time.  It goes way beyond Andrew's sins and crimes.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/28/what-is-prorogation-prorogue-parliament-boris-johnson-brexit

If there ever was a time to use royal prerogative this was it. But it would have upset the Brexiteers to no end and would have been problematic in all sort of ways, so I fully understand that she didn't, whatever her inner convictions are on this matter.

Seems fair to notice that if the UK had a Constitution defining the legal powers and responsibilities of the Head of State and maybe even an elected (at least by the Parliament) Head of State, s/he would have had the power to say fuck you  to BoJo. Our Head of State, Presidente Mattarella, was instrumental in finding a solution to the current political crisis. And in Spain the Constitution gives the king the power to make a political decision in such a case.

The UK needs a Constitution. It wouldn't be necessary to become a republic, just having a Constitution that sets the prerogatives of the various powers and balances them out. It's unbelievable that BoJo, with a majority of one in the House of Commons, chosen as PM by a non representative minority, can have the power to dismiss an elected Parliament in a moment that's so decisive for the country.

Edited August 29, 2019 by laPapessaGiovanna

[Karma]

13 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

I think she (or her envoy) dismissed an Australian PM 

Yes, back in 1975, the then Prime Minister of Australia, Gough Whitlam, was dismissed by the Queen’s representative, Governor General Sir John Kerr.

I’m always amazed. at the breadth of your knowledge, @Palimpsest!  

[Palimpsest]

5 hours ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

The UK needs a Constitution.

The UK has a Constitution.  The problem is that it is not contained in a single document.  But that problem is also a strength because it provides for some flexibility.

And, frankly, we've been trying to take power away from the sovereign since 1215 (Magna Carta)!  Obviously there have been many tweaks since then limiting the monarch's power more.  

I would be loathe to increase the powers of the Constitutional Monarchy.  Lillibet has been on the throne since before I was born, but others may not be as dutiful or judicious in as QEII in exercising power.  

BoJo is a disaster.  You can insert all the expletives here I don't have the energy to type out.  However, he's managed to piss off quite a few pro-Brexit people too with this dirty dealing.

The best (and most likely) option now is for the MPs to pass a vote of no-confidence before 10 September.  Of course there is no guarantee that a general election in October would topple the Conservative party, but at least it is a chance.

[LittleOwl]

44 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

The UK has a Constitution.  The problem is that it is not contained in a single document.  But that problem is also a strength because it provides for some flexibility.

I would like to upvote this x eleventy.